ReviewCureus2025
Early Versus Delayed Norepinephrine Initiation in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Septic shock remains a major cause of illness and death worldwide despite improvements in critical care, and the optimal timing for starting norepinephrine continues to generate debate. This review assessed whether administering norepinephrine within the first hour of recognizing shock or upon ICU admission provides meaningful advantages compared with delayed initiation. A broad search of major databases from 2010 to May 2025 identified randomized trials and observational studies examining early versus later administration. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that early norepinephrine was associated with a modest but statistically non-significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76-1.06; p = 0.18). Observational studies, however, demonstrated a clearer survival benefit, with early initiation linked to a significant decrease in deaths (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.94). Moderate heterogeneity (I² = 65.6%) likely reflected variation in study design, patient severity, and differences in defining early treatment. Overall, the evidence suggests that early norepinephrine may help stabilize hemodynamics more quickly and could improve clinical outcomes, though current randomized data remain limited. Further high-quality research is needed to better define the magnitude of benefit and guide consistent practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.